Hydrogen Atoms in a High-Frequency Laser Field
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
atoms Review Mini-Review: Hydrogen Atoms in a High-Frequency Laser Field Eugene Oks Physics Department, 380 Duncan Drive, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA; [email protected] Received: 9 July 2019; Accepted: 15 August 2019; Published: 19 August 2019 Abstract: Because of the continuing advances in developing lasers in the far-ultraviolet and x-ray ranges, studies of the behavior of atoms under a high-frequency laser field are of theoretical and practical interest. In the present paper, we review various analytical results obtained by the method of separating rapid and slow subsystems for various polarizations of the laser field. Specifically, we review the corresponding analytical results both in terms of the quantum description of the phenomena involved and in terms of the classical description of the phenomena involved. We point out that, for the classical description of hydrogen atoms in a high-frequency laser field, there are interesting celestial analogies. We discuss hidden symmetries of these physical systems, the advantages of this analytical method, and the connection between these results and the transition to chaos. Keywords: atoms in a high-frequency laser field; separation of rapid and slow subsystems; celestial analogies; hidden symmetries 1. Introduction Because of the continuing advances in developing lasers in the far-ultraviolet and x-ray ranges, studies of the behavior of atoms under a high-frequency laser field are of theoretical and practical interest. The “high-frequency” means that the laser frequency ! is much greater than any of the atomic transition frequencies !n’n: ! >> !n’n (1) In the present paper we review various analytical results obtained by the method of separating rapid and slow subsystems. Specifically, in Section2 we review the corresponding analytical results in frames of the quantum description of the phenomena involved. In Section2 we follow papers [ 1,2]. In Section3 we review the corresponding analytical results in frames of the classical description of the phenomena involved. In Section3 we follow papers [ 3,4]. In Conclusions, we discuss the advantages of applying the method of separating rapid and slow subsystems to the physical systems under consideration. We emphasize the rich physics behind the corresponding phenomena. 2. Quantum Hydrogen Atoms in a High-Frequency Laser Field It is well-known [5,6] that, for quantum systems in a monochromatic field, it is convenient to use the formalism of quasienergy states. The problem of finding such states of the hydrogen-like atom/ion in a linearly polarized high-frequency laser field was first considered by Ritus [5]. He found quasienergies for the states of the principal quantum number n = 1 and n = 2, for which the perturbation operator U is diagonal in the basis of the spherical wave functions (i.e., the wave functions of the unperturbed atom in the spherical quantization). Papers [7,8] stated, without any proof, that for states of n > 2, the perturbation operator U couples the substates of l and l 2, where l is the orbital momentum quantum number. In paper [8], the study ± of the quasienergies for n > 2 was based on the approximate analogy with the problem of finding Atoms 2019, 7, 83; doi:10.3390/atoms7030083 www.mdpi.com/journal/atoms Atoms 2019, 7, 83 2 of 15 + + energies for the hydrogen molecular ion H2 . Based on the energies for H2 from paper [9], for n > 2, the author of paper [8] found “corrections” to the quasienergies from paper [5] due to the coupling of the substates of l and l 2. However, in a later paper [10], where the authors used the dependence of + ± the energies for H2 on the internuclear distance R from paper [11], they obtained the result that in the limit R coincides with the quasienergies from paper [5], which contradicts paper [8]. !1 Thus, it remained unclear whether the perturbation U couples the substates of l and l 2 at fixed ± n. To answer this question, one should have directly calculated matrix elements of the perturbation between the substates of l and l 2 at fixed n. This was accomplished in paper [1], where the authors ± demonstrated that these matrix elements are zeros. This meant that, in reality, the perturbation operator U does not couple the substates of l and l 2 for any n, so that the expression for quasienergies from ± paper [5] is not limited by n = 1 and n = 2 (as asserted in paper [5]), but is in fact valid for any n. The diagonality of the perturbation operator U in the basis of the spherical wave functions allowed easily calculating the splitting of any spectral line of a hydrogenic atom/ion under the high-frequency laser field. This was the main, fundamental result of paper [1]. Under condition (1), the laser field represents the rapid subsystem, while the hydrogenic atom/ion represents a slow subsystem. The powerful method of separating rapid and slow subsystems allows us to obtain accurate analytical results for such systems. For implementing this method for particular physical systems, there can be some interesting nuances or versions. It is instructive to see how this method was implemented in paper [1], whose results we present below. The Schrödinger equation for ahydrogen-like atom/ion in a laser field (of the amplitude E0) described by the vector-potential A(t) = A sin!t, where A = (0, 0, cE /!), has the following form 0 0 − 0 (here and below the atomic unitsh ¯ = me = e = 1 are used): i@Y/@t = [H + V(t)]Y,H = p2/2 Z/r + A 2/(2c), V(t) = (A p/c)sin!t [A 2/(2c)]cos2!t (2) 0 0 − 0 − 0 − 0 Here, Z is the nuclear charge and r is the distance of the electron from the nucleus. The notation A0p stands for the scalar product (also known as the dot-product) of these two vectors. The term 2 A0 /(2c) is the average vibrational energy of the free electron in the laser field. We seek the solution of Equation (2) in the form Y(t) = exp[ iα(t)] F, α(t) = [A p/(!c)]cos!t [A 2/(8!c2)]sin2!t (3) − 0 − 0 Substituting Equation (3) in Equation (2), we obtain the following equation: i@F/@t = H F,H = exp[iα(t)]H exp[ iα(t)] = H + i[α,H ] + (i2/2)[α,[α,H ]] + ::: = H + H (4) 1 1 0 − 0 0 0 1,stat 1,osc In Equation (4), [α,H0] and [α,[α,H0]] are commutators. H1,stat and H1,osc are the stationary (i.e., averaged over the laser field period 2π/!) and oscillatory parts of the Hamiltonian H1. Under the condition (1), i.e., since the laser field is the rapid subsystem, the primary contribution to the solution of Equation (4) originates from the stationary part H1,stat. According to the second line of Equation (4), H1,stat can be represented in the following form: H = H + γV + γ2V + ::: , γ = E 2/(2!2)2,V = Z(1 3cos2θ)/r3,V = 3Z( 3 + 30cos2θ 35cos4θ)/(4r5) (5) 1,stat 0 1 2 0 1 − 2 − − where θ is the polar angle of the atomic electron, the z-axis being parallel to the laser field. Assuming γ << 1, we will use the perturbation theory for finding the eigenvalues and the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian H1,stat. It is important to emphasize the following counterintuitive fact: since the unperturbed system is degenerate, then according to paper [12], the linear (with respect to γ) corrections to the eigenfunctions will originate not only from the term γV1 but also from the 2 term γ V2. Atoms 2019, 7, 83 3 of 15 It is easy to see that the radial part of the matrix element <nlm|V |nl’m>, where l’ = l 2, reduces 1 − to the following type of the integral: Z1 r r p J = z exp( z)Q + (z)Q (z)dz, (s > 0), (6) − k s k 0 m where Qn (z) are the Laguerre polynomials. According to the textbook [13], for <nlm|V1|nl’m> with l’ = l 2 one gets J = 0, so that <nlm|V |nl’m> = 0. This means that the spherical eigenfunctions ' − 1 nlm of the unperturbed Hamiltonian H0 turn out to be the correct eigenfunctions of the zeroth order of the truncated perturbed Hamiltonian H0 + γV1. Therefore, according to paper [12], the eigenvalues Fnλ and the eigenfunctions χnλ of the Hamiltonian H1,stat within the accuracy of the terms ~γ are expressed as follows: (0) (0) 2 2 2 2 P Fnλ = En + γ < nλ V1 nλ >,En = Z /(2n ) + E0 /(2!) , χnλ = 'nλ + γ j j − j (7) (0) (0) < j V nλ > ' /(En E )+ j 1j j − j P P (0) (0) +γ < nµ V1 j >< j V1 nλ > 'nµ/[(En Ej )(< nλ V1 nλ > < nµ V1 nµ >)] µ λf j j j j j − j j − j j , o (8) ++ < nµ V nλ > 'nµ/(< nλ V nλ > < nµ V nµ >) j 1j j 1j − j 1j In Equation (8), λ = (l, m), µ = (l”, m”), j = (n’, l’, m’), n’ , n. Substituting V1 from Equation (5) in Equation (8), we obtain the following for l > 0: F = Z2/(2n2) + E 2/(2!)2 + (Z4E 2/!4)[3m2 l(l + 1)]/[n3(2l + 3)(l + 1)(2l + 1)l(2l 1)] (9) nlm − 0 0 − − For finding Fnlm (i.e., for l = 0), instead of the formula for V1 from Equation (5), we use the following expression: 2 2 " 3 V = Z[1 3cos θ + "(4cos θ 1)]r − ,|"| << 1 (10) 1 − − The expression for V1 from Equation (10) corresponds to the quasi-Coulomb nuclear potential Zr" 1.